Horatio Garage vs. Mogul Oil Co and Jerry Builders LTD.
Introduction
An agreement usually involves two or more parties; the promisee and the promiser. For an agreement to become a contract, there must be an offer and acceptance to the proposal. As such, when two or more parties are making contracts, they set some terms which the parties are required to commit themselves into. Every party must, therefore, strive to fulfill the promises made at the entry into the contract (Kronman, 5). Breaching of the contract by any of the parties becomes a matter to be dealt with using all the possible legal means such as the courts. The court usually finds facts, identifies the issue, gives and a decision, and then the reason with relevant laws that the court used for the case. This piece, therefore, provides a case brief of the entire case between Horatio garage vs. Mogul Oil Co and Jerry Builders LTD, and the advice to Mogul owner about what he or she can be able to recover.
Facts
Horatio garage owner entered into two contracts. One with Mogul Oil Company and the other with Jerry Builders LTD. Mogul Oil Company had agreed to supply 5000 liters of Horatio gasoline oil at $ 1 per litter. For the second contract, Jerry builders LTD agreed with Horatio that they would construct a large repair shop using extensive servicing facilities.
Issue
The conflict between Horatio garage and Mogul Oil Co arises as a result of Mogul’s infringement of the contract. The two parties have reached an agreement that Mogul will supply 5000 liters of gasoline at $ 1 per liter within the agreed period. However, Mogul failed to provide gasoline due to a threatened conflict in the Middle East. On the other hand, Jerry builders LTD had agreed with the garage that they would build a repair store using extensive servicing facilities. The construction company, however, made a weak house, which later collapses.
Decision
For the first case, the failure of Mogul Oil Co to supply oil was due to the threatened conflicts in the Middle East. This reason was, therefore, considerably significant for them to fail to supply the fuel. As a result, they are not likely to compensate Horatio garage for any loss. However, for the second case, Jerry Builders LTD used incompetent workers to construct the house. As a result, they have to cater for all losses incurred, including the repair house, the car, and other future losses.
Reason
The decisions above are based on English laws. For instance, the English law gives provisions on liability for negligence.
Advice to Horatio garage
Based on all legal requirements, the best course of action for Horatio to take is to accept the loss incurred from the infringement of the contract with Mogul Oil Co and to use legal matters to address the case of Jerry Builders LTD. This is because Jerry Builders Co. failed to deliver the quality that they promised to deliver while entering into the contract. Horatio will then be assured to recover the costs incurred to construct the repair house, the cost of other damages, and so forth.
Works Cited
Kronman, Anthony T. “Contract law and the state of nature.” Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 1.1 (1985): 5-32.